California Psychological Inventory (434) Police and Public ......Nar Narcissism (Wink, Gough: 1990) - 49 items Hos Hostility (Adams 1995) - 31 items Anx Anxiety - 22 items v.1 Internality

California Psychological Inventory (434)Police and Public Safety Selection Report©

by Michael D. Roberts, Ph.D., Michael Johnson, Ph.D., and Ryan M. Roberts, Ph.D.

Suicide, After (105-60-0001)35 year old other ethnic maleTested on Wednesday, October 13, 2010Applying for the position of Police Officer, Deputy, TrooperHighest level of education: Some collegeEmployment experience in public safety field: No responsePrevious psychological testing: Twice

General CPI Results

Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alpha% of applicants with this type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65%

Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Level: 4% of applicants at this level or lower (based on v.3) . . . . . . 12%

Selection Relevant CPI Items Number of Selection Relevant items endorsed atypically* . . 13% of applicants endorsing this many items or more . . . . . . . 13%

Number of unanswered items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . None

* These items should be treated as topics of further inquiry.

Profile Validity Indicators

CPI Scales T PercentileGI 50 3Cm 61 100

Validity Indices: Raw PercentileFake Good 53 10Fake Bad 48 24Random 51 3

Job Suitability Snapshot

PercentileProbability of being rated a 'poorly suited' applicant bypsychologists with expertise in public safety screeninga . . . . . 59% 93

Probability of involuntary departureb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19% 86Probability of having background problems related toc . . . . . .

Job performance 68% 97

Integrity 47% 86

Anger management 81% 99

Alcohol use concerns 28% 86

Illegal drug use 20% 83

Substance abuse proclivity 49% 86

Notes:· When formulating a selection recommendation, each of the probability estimates listed above should be

considered along with other data sources, such as an interview, a background check, and a polygraph.· The formulas used to estimate the probabilities listed above were based on the following samples: (a) 23,580

public safety applicants, (b) 3,390 police officers, and (c) 37,700 public safety applicants.· In the Profile Validity Indicators section, the T scores for the Gi and Cm scales are non-gendered and based on

a sample of 6,000 cases in the CPI community sample. The percentiles are based on a comparison sample of40,814 applying for the position of police officer/deputy/trooper. For the Gi Scale, very high percentiles areundesirable; percentiles of 90% or more are boldfaced. For the Cm scale, very low scores are undesirable;percentiles of 10% or less, are boldfaced. For the Validity Indices, the raw scores are non-gendered and basedon a sample of 2,000 cases in a CPI community sample. Raw scores that exceed the thresholds specified in theCPI manual are boldfaced. Percentile values -- which are based on a comparison sample of 40,814 applying forthe position of police officer/deputy/trooper -- are not boldfaced, even if they equal or exceed 90%.

California Psychological Inventory (CPI) © 1986, 1995, 2000 CPP, Inc. Police and Public Safety Selection Report © 1995, 2000, 2001, 2017Johnson, Roberts and Associates, Inc. (510) 530-1963

3/6/2018 (v12.0.0) Test Serial No.

CPI Police and Public Safety Selection Report Page 10Suicide, After (105-60-0001) 10/13/2010

CPI Scales

A legend of scale acronyms/abbreviations and full-scale names is presented below. Detailed descriptions of thesescales are provided in the CPI Manual (Gough & Bradley, 2002), in cited publications and in the Technical Manualwritten for this report (Roberts, Johnson, & Roberts, 2017).

Code Description - # of items

Do Dominance - 36 items

Cs Capacity for Status - 28 items

Sy Sociability - 32 items

Sp Social Presence - 38 items

Sa Self-Acceptance - 28 items

In Independence - 30 items

Em Empathy - 38 items

Re Responsibility - 36 items

So Socialization - 46 items

Sc Self-Control - 38 items

Gi Good Impression - 40 items

Cm Communality - 38 items

Wb Well-Being - 38 items

To Tolerance - 32 items

Ac Achievement via Conformance - 38 items

Ai Achievement via Independence - 36 items

Ie Intellectual Efficiency - 42 items

Py Psychological-Mindedness - 28 items

Fx Flexibility - 28 items

Code Description - # of items

Itg Integrity (Gough, Bradley, Roberts, Johnson:1999) - 46 items

So1 Socialization: Optimism - 12 items

So2 Socialization: Self-Discipline - 15 items

So3 Socialization: Favorable Memories of Family& Childhood - 10 items

So4 Socialization: Interpersonal Awareness &Situational Sensitivity - 9 items

Wo Work Orientation (Gough 1985) - 40 items

Mp Managerial Potential (Gough 1984) - 34 items

Lp Leadership Potential - 70 items

Leo Law Enforcement orientation (Gough 1996) -42 items

Ami Amicability (Gough 1996) - 36 items

Nar Narcissism (Wink, Gough: 1990) - 49 items

Hos Hostility (Adams 1995) - 31 items

Anx Anxiety - 22 items

v.1 Internality (Gough 1996) - 34 items

v.2 Norm-Favoring (Gough 1996) - 36 items

v.3 Ego Integration (Gough 1996) - 58 items


3/6/2018 (v12.0.0) Test Serial No.


Applicant Type and Level

Test Taker's Type = Alpha% of applicants in this type = 65%

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

5 10 15 25 30

Norm-favoringv.2

Alpha Beta

Ext v.1 Int

Gamma DeltaNorm-doubting

At their best Alphas can be charismatic leaders andinstigators of constructive social action. However,some Alpha subjects are also described as:ambitious, boastful, conceited, ingenious,opportunistic, outgoing, show-off and shrewd. Also,the IPAR staff noted an undesirable quality ofself-seeking in some Alpha subjects.

In the shaded area of the chart, the horizontaldimension indicates the mean applicant raw score forthe v.1 scale (Externality/Internality) plus or minusone standard deviation. The vertical dimensionindicates the mean applicant raw score for the v.2scale (Norm-Favoring/Norm Doubting) plus or minusone standard deviation. The black square representsthe test taker’s scores. The data was based on asample of 40,814 applicants for the position of policeofficer/deputy/trooper

Test Taker's Level = 4% of applicants at this level or lower = 16%

The shaded area of the chart indicates the mean applicant raw score for the v.3 scale (Ego Integration) plus or minusone standard deviation. The dark line represents the test taker's score.

Level 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Ego Integration v.3

Raw Score 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55

VECTOR SCALE SCORES

Scale Scale Label Raw Score ApplicantPercentile*

v.1 Externality/Internality 8 7v.2 Norm-Favoring/Norm Doubting 26 46v.3 Ego Integration 37 12

* For each scale, the percentile value indicates where the test taker’s scale score falls, on a percentage basis, alongthe distribution of scale scores for the Applicant norm sample. For v.1, very high scores are undesirable. Percentilesof 90% or more (indicating that only 10% of the Applicant norm sample have scores as high or higher than the testtaker) are boldfaced. For v.2 and V.3, very low scores are undesirable. Percentiles of 10% or less (indicating thatonly 10% of the Applicant norm sample have scores as low or lower than the test taker) are boldfaced.


3/6/2018 (v12.0.0) Test Serial No.


Selection Relevant CPI Items

Items endorsed by test taker

The items printed below were endorsed by this test taker as indicated by the T(true) or F(false) in the parenthesesafter each item. The percent following the T or F endorsement is the percent of police and public safety applicantswho endorsed the item in the same direction. Items printed in italics were correlated with substandard performanceon three or more police officer job function categories as rated by sergeants who knew the post probation officerswell. It is useful to discuss selected item endorsements with the applicant during the interview. This practice mayhelp individualize the suitability assessment, and will also serve to rule out mismarks or misunderstandings by theapplicant.

Self-initiative/motivation ( 1 items endorsed )

147. . (T-7%)

Following rules and regulations ( 1 items endorsed )

212. . (F-34%)

Interpersonal skills/relationships with coworkers and the public ( 2 items endorsed )

81. . (T-18%)

194. . (T-15%)

Self control ( 8 items endorsed )

44. . (T-10%)

91. . (T-10%)

114. . (T-2%)

115. (T-14%)

187. (T-9%)

232. . (T-2%)

276. . (F-7%)

309. . (T-7%)

Assertiveness ( 1 items endorsed )

309. . (T-7%)

Decision making ( No items endorsed )

Social concerns ( No items endorsed )

Unanswered Items ( No unanswered items )


3/6/2018 (v12.0.0) Test Serial No.


Indicators of Essential Job Functions and Job PerformanceProblems for Police Officer Applicants

The table below identifies test results that are associated with either favorable or unfavorable supervisory ratings on(1) job functions that are considered essential for success as a public safety officer, and (2) potential jobperformance problems. Note that a single indicator may be listed in the table in more than one location; thisredundancy reflects the "broadband" nature of many indicators' linkages to selection criteria.

Favorable Indicators Unfavorable Indicators

ESSENTIAL JOB FUNCTIONS

Job knowledge Ami

Written communications Mp, Lvl

Verbal communications Mp, Ami, Lvl, Hos, Sc, Wb

Problem solving/decisions So, Ami, So3, Lvl, Hos

Patrol responsibility Leo

Control of conflict So, Sc, Ami, So3, Nar

Reliability So, Ami, So3, Nar

Relations with co-workers So, Ami, So3

Relations with citizens So, Sc, Gi, Ami, So3, Nar, Hos

Overall percentile rating So, Ami, So3

JOB PERFORMANCE PROBLEMS

Excessive/unnecessary force Nar

Alcohol abuse So

Illegal drug use

Firearms misuse So, So3

Unethical behavor So, Mp, Ami, So3

Exccessive disability use

Sick leave abuse Leo

Dishonesty So, So3

Personal realtion problems So, Wb, Mp, Ami

Favoritism So

Other problems Hos

TOTAL INDICATORS 1 53


3/6/2018 (v12.0.0) Test Serial No.


Item Responses

1. T 41. T 81. T 121. F 161. F 201. T 241. F 281. F 321. F 361. T 401. F2. F 42. T 82. T 122. F 162. T 202. T 242. T 282. F 322. T 362. F 402. F3. F 43. F 83. F 123. T 163. T 203. T 243. F 283. T 323. F 363. F 403. T4. T 44. T 84. F 124. F 164. F 204. T 244. F 284. F 324. F 364. F 404. F5. F 45. F 85. F 125. T 165. T 205. F 245. T 285. F 325. F 365. F 405. F6. T 46. T 86. T 126. T 166. T 206. F 246. T 286. F 326. T 366. F 406. F7. F 47. F 87. T 127. T 167. T 207. F 247. T 287. F 327. F 367. F 407. F8. T 48. T 88. T 128. T 168. F 208. T 248. T 288. F 328. F 368. T 408. T9. F 49. T 89. F 129. T 169. F 209. T 249. T 289. T 329. F 369. F 409. F

10. T 50. T 90. F 130. F 170. F 210. F 250. F 290. F 330. F 370. F 410. T11. F 51. T 91. T 131. T 171. F 211. T 251. F 291. F 331. F 371. T 411. F12. F 52. T 92. F 132. F 172. T 212. F 252. F 292. T 332. F 372. F 412. T13. F 53. T 93. F 133. T 173. F 213. T 253. T 293. T 333. T 373. T 413. T14. F 54. F 94. F 134. F 174. F 214. T 254. F 294. F 334. F 374. F 414. T15. F 55. T 95. F 135. F 175. T 215. F 255. F 295. T 335. F 375. T 415. T16. F 56. F 96. T 136. T 176. F 216. T 256. T 296. T 336. T 376. T 416. F17. F 57. T 97. F 137. F 177. F 217. F 257. F 297. F 337. F 377. T 417. F18. F 58. F 98. T 138. T 178. F 218. T 258. F 298. T 338. F 378. F 418. F19. F 59. T 99. F 139. F 179. T 219. T 259. T 299. F 339. F 379. F 419. F20. F 60. F 100. T 140. F 180. T 220. F 260. T 300. F 340. F 380. T 420. T21. T 61. T 101. F 141. T 181. T 221. T 261. F 301. F 341. F 381. F 421. F22. T 62. F 102. T 142. T 182. T 222. F 262. T 302. F 342. F 382. T 422. F23. F 63. T 103. F 143. T 183. F 223. T 263. T 303. T 343. T 383. F 423. F24. T 64. F 104. F 144. F 184. T 224. T 264. T 304. T 344. F 384. F 424. T25. F 65. F 105. F 145. F 185. F 225. T 265. T 305. T 345. T 385. F 425. F26. T 66. T 106. F 146. T 186. F 226. T 266. T 306. F 346. T 386. T 426. F27. F 67. F 107. T 147. T 187. T 227. F 267. F 307. F 347. T 387. F 427. F28. F 68. F 108. T 148. F 188. F 228. F 268. T 308. F 348. T 388. F 428. T29. F 69. F 109. T 149. T 189. F 229. T 269. T 309. T 349. F 389. T 429. F30. T 70. F 110. T 150. F 190. F 230. T 270. F 310. T 350. F 390. F 430. T31. F 71. F 111. F 151. F 191. T 231. F 271. T 311. F 351. T 391. F 431. F32. F 72. F 112. T 152. F 192. F 232. T 272. T 312. T 352. F 392. T 432. T33. F 73. F 113. F 153. F 193. T 233. F 273. F 313. F 353. F 393. F 433. T34. T 74. F 114. T 154. F 194. T 234. F 274. F 314. T 354. T 394. T 434. T35. F 75. F 115. T 155. F 195. T 235. T 275. F 315. F 355. T 395. T36. F 76. F 116. F 156. F 196. F 236. F 276. F 316. T 356. F 396. T37. T 77. T 117. T 157. F 197. T 237. F 277. T 317. T 357. F 397. F38. F 78. T 118. T 158. T 198. T 238. T 278. F 318. F 358. F 398. F39. T 79. F 119. F 159. F 199. T 239. F 279. F 319. T 359. T 399. F40. F 80. T 120. T 160. F 200. T 240. F 280. T 320. T 360. F 400. T

End of Report


3/6/2018 (v12.0.0) Test Serial No.

Documents

California Psychological Inventory (434) Police and Public ......Nar Narcissism (Wink, Gough: 1990) - 49 items Hos Hostility (Adams 1995) - 31 items Anx Anxiety - 22 items v.1 Internality